Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Role of Lactobacillus Reuteri in Human Health and Diseases

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 101 posts

Re: Role of Lactobacillus Reuteri in Human Health and Diseases

#31

Post by sooheon »

folli wrote: post #23
milofeynman wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can you patent a naturally occurring bacteria?

You usually patent the use of such bacteria, not the bacteria per se.

The strain itself (and its specific genome) can be patented. Not as it's found "in the wild", but with genetic modification. The thing is this "genetic modification" includes not just techniques like CRISPR, but also just letting the bacteria mutate in a vat.

I think it's total nonsense, but the law allows it. If wild bacteria growing on your skin happens to mutate into the exact same genetic code as a patented strain, you could technically be in infringement.

[1] https://internationalprobiotics.org/focus-on-probiotic-paten...

Re: Role of Lactobacillus Reuteri in Human Health and Diseases

#32

Post by sooheon »

reuteriq wrote: post #11
jimbru wrote: post #2

For anyone interested in L. Reuteri, you can buy it in the U.S. as Gerber probiotic drops ( https://medical.gerber.com/products/supplements/soothe-colic... ). Marketed for babies but obviously works on adults too. Last I checked Gerber had an exclusive license on U.S. distribution of this bacterium—there’s a Swedish company, BioGaia, that IIRC is the original patent holder.

Is it possible to introduce this to the body without buying it specifically? Or put another way, how did people get L. Reuteri without pharmaceutical/supplement companies growing it in labs?

It is found all over the place in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limosilactobacillus_reuteri

> It appears to be essentially ubiquitous in the animal kingdom, having been found in the gastrointestinal tracts and feces of healthy humans,[7] sheep, chickens,[8] pigs,[9] and rodents.[10] It is the only species to constitute a "major component" of the Lactobacillus species present in the gut of each of the tested host animals,[11] and each host seems to harbor its own specific strain of L. reuteri.[10][12] It is possible that L. reuteri contributes to the health of its host organism in some manner.[13]

The labs got it from nature, not the other way around.

Re: Role of Lactobacillus Reuteri in Human Health and Diseases

#33

Post by boffinAudio »

adrianN wrote: post #29
v4dok wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was once a research group in a university that found a specific diet helping/curing crohn's. However a food/health conglomerate with a product in the market for the disease paid the professor to shelf the research and it never saw the light of day. Speaking with one of the researchers he keeps telling me that food diversity and gut microbiome are extremely important for all shorts of things. So your comment doe…

This reads like a classic "Big Pharma" conspiracy tale without further substantiation.

It wouldn't be the first time Big Pharma did something harmful to society in order to protect its profit margins. You don't seriously think there is a moral stance that leads one to conclude Big Pharma is benevolent and always looking out for humanity?

Re: Role of Lactobacillus Reuteri in Human Health and Diseases

#34

Post by pjc50 »

boffinAudio wrote: post #33
adrianN wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads like a classic "Big Pharma" conspiracy tale without further substantiation.

It wouldn't be the first time Big Pharma did something harmful to society in order to protect its profit margins. You don't seriously think there is a moral stance that leads one to conclude Big Pharma is benevolent and always looking out for humanity?

The key word here is "substantiation" aka "evidence".

Re: Role of Lactobacillus Reuteri in Human Health and Diseases

#35

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

folli wrote: post #28
joe-collins wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breast milk is not sterile. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643565/

That's hotly debated. Even the study you cite cannot rule out skin contamination. But unequivocally showing the existence of entero-mammary pathway (translocation of maternal gut bacteria from the gut to the mammary glands) would be very exciting news indeed.

The article says that L. reuteri is present in other places in the body besides the gut.

Re: Role of Lactobacillus Reuteri in Human Health and Diseases

#36

Post by bawolff »

sooheon wrote: post #31
folli wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You usually patent the use of such bacteria, not the bacteria per se.

The strain itself (and its specific genome) can be patented. Not as it's found "in the wild", but with genetic modification. The thing is this "genetic modification" includes not just techniques like CRISPR, but also just letting the bacteria mutate in a vat. I think it's total nonsense, but the law allows it. If wild bacteria growing on your skin happens to mutate into the exact same genetic code as a patented strai…

Even still, why would such a patent be useful? Couldnt competitors just sell the generic version?

Re: Role of Lactobacillus Reuteri in Human Health and Diseases

#37

Post by bawolff »

folli wrote: post #28
joe-collins wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breast milk is not sterile. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643565/

That's hotly debated. Even the study you cite cannot rule out skin contamination. But unequivocally showing the existence of entero-mammary pathway (translocation of maternal gut bacteria from the gut to the mammary glands) would be very exciting news indeed.

In the context of this conversation, does it matter whether the cause is skin contamination or not?

Re: Role of Lactobacillus Reuteri in Human Health and Diseases

#39

Post by sooheon »

bawolff wrote: post #36
sooheon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strain itself (and its specific genome) can be patented. Not as it's found "in the wild", but with genetic modification. The thing is this "genetic modification" includes not just techniques like CRISPR, but also just letting the bacteria mutate in a vat. I think it's total nonsense, but the law allows it. If wild bacteria growing on your skin happens to mutate into the exact same genetic code as a patented strai…

Even still, why would such a patent be useful? Couldnt competitors just sell the generic version?

They can and do. But if you pay for a bunch of lab/clinical research with a specific strain you get to say it’s the one that’s actually been tested.

Re: Role of Lactobacillus Reuteri in Human Health and Diseases

#40

Post by sohkamyung »

bawolff wrote: post #38
flobosg wrote: post #17

Just a pedantic nitpick since I couldn’t stop the biologist in me: It’s “ reuteri ”, all lowercase.

Even in title case? Its not like we would normally capitalize "Human" or "Health" either?

It's Binomial nomenclature [1]. The name should also be in italics, but not sure how that would be enabled in HN headlines.

> In modern usage, the first letter of the generic name is always capitalized in writing, while that of the specific epithet is not, even when derived from a proper noun such as the name of a person or place. Similarly, both parts are italicized in normal text (or underlined in handwriting).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature

Post reply on HN